No. I didn't have such a problematic relationship that I didn't control my usage.
I do feel sad about such a great app RiF dying and the deterioration of communities I found great. Also the pattern of googling plus Reddit giving you insights. It was a convenient default which I think will die/deteriorate for a while.
I am excited to see what opportunities arise from this. Very much so.
Exactly. I probably don't agree on everything with 100% of developers of the tool out there. I don't want creators of technological tools (or anyone for that matter) to be subject to purity of ideology and opinion tests. I didn't want Brendan Eich gone from Mozilla nor anyone else gone from the tools they develop.
This is also pretty common. People tend to think like that about everything they had in their formative years.
It's nostalgia plus a realization of how entrenched tech bureocratic processes have penetrated their lives, oftentimes making them worse, not better (many of the improvements are taken for granted).
But my point is you can take this "old times were better" in most of every case when doing these surveys. About music, TV and everything.
What people really want are the benefits without some of the cons that they've very willingly accepted out of laziness and/or ignorance.
They've lost a ton of privacy and rights and ability to discourse and act by being so heavily surveilled and "panopticon'd" into superficial uniformity of opinion.
Many of the things they complain about they can still do "non tech/non online" but it requires more effort than pretending that there should be just one way so they don't have to choose.
The solution is the same as with the current shitty clickbait of today, ignore it.
If they automate shovelling useless crap (which they've already done quite a bit without the likes of chatgpt) then it's on the user to say "I'm not just gonna consume your crap, I'll go elsewhere with my views, which are your success metric, in aggregate"
What would you legislate here? The publication clearly doesn't care about quality and paying some people to fill shitty, already pre programmed templates and using something like chatGPT seems like the same style of crap.
They were definitely not a safe source of labor.
Also, I'd caution against reactive takes of "legislation" when the politicians who can legislate usually don't understand the technologies and are simply trying to bundle stuff in for their lobbyist (who funds them) benefit. The same types who "want to ban encryption" or other myopic takes.
Stronger rights and guarantees around imbalances of power (not specifically related to tech either) would work much better than just reacting to an AI scare.
Fun fact. Your take just made me sign up there too.
I actually seek different perspectives and don't quite agree with any particular place that is very "ideologically packeted" like most tend to. Where "they insult" and "we don't, because if they feel insulted is because of Reality and how right we are".
I'm new to all this fediverse and I'm curious to see how different niche interests develop and if we can actually form the usefulness that Reddit threads could have or if it's a unique and different usefulness...
You hold viewpoint A and claim that those that hold viewpoint B do it because they are mad because they don't get their way instead listening to the actual stated reason, such as OPs.
I think federation is absolutely interesting but this is definitely a consideration and pretending everyone that raises is "umad" or bad is not compelling. Communities online already have problems of "circlejerk" and extreme uniformity. This could easily foster that even more to a point where there's really no communities of significance. Just similar things to 20-100 people using a chat medium to share stuff.
Meh. "Fascism"? That tactic is used in politics all the time against most prominent leaders and groups, no matter where they come from. They're both inept and totally powerful and Machiavellian.
It's the whole thing about "will bear them with humor and ridicule" but also "look at their evil actions".
What happened to those subs? Admin takeover?
Yeah. Don't want you to feel the need to justify yourself. I appreciate the efforts regardless of whether we end up agreeing on moderation policies (and I think not agreeing on everything and coexisting is awesome). Was just adding my 2 cents, which I feel will be different from many.
I obviously have my concerns on the "call out a nazi" because holding the wrong (TM) opinion will get you called a nazi but that's just par for the course. I don't particularly need a safe space and it would be bad (imho) if ALL spaces were so but, again, presumably the ability of a descentralized network is that, that everyone will always be able to launch their instance with their rules to mitigate that concern.
I'm perfectly ok to play by the rules here and see how it goes.
I don't pretend to change anything of how this place works, specially considering it's federated and, as you say, presumably different spaces can be forked and "set up their own rules".
I remain, however quite keen to see if the "no hate speech" is a consistent thing or simply a "hate is ok against the right targets" and "being on the other side of X issue is hate speech" (e.g.: any controversial topic such as being against a particular war, being in favor of/against political party X, expressing views opposed to government policies, not sharing a specific view by the demographic majority of the site (Usually US/UK/AUS)).
Ideally, I can set up something where I can get exposure to many views and go here and there without having to feel I'm in X circlejerk and the narrative is packet Y, that comes with all these predetermined views in this overton window.
In a way, the more I have access to, the better. Because I can move from side to side learning about the others. Obviously, this view is not shared by many and thet would gladly censor 75% of the space to preserve the right way, claiming it's "moderation". I don't disagree on moderation but I think that we're too interfered at this point that we don't even see how little room we have for discussion (which then creates very narrow discussions in different niches).
In any case, sorry for the stream of consciousness. Excited to see how all this works and hopefully I'm able to participate and gain insights from a wide array of perspectives in a wide descentralized network.
The problem is that Lemmy is being mentioned in hackernews reddit and elsewhere as a potential alternative. Not as an alternative with all those caveats in framing but just so.
Communicating what it is even more boldly might be useful (I know it's been done quite a lot in long self posts but that I'm not sure how much of that goes through)